Texas Cops Busting Drunks Inside Bars

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck. The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

[hat tip to Mish.]

Update: Punchy in the comments notes: "They were also going into hotel bars--a place were people had absolutely no intention of driving, and busting them. Claimed they may drink too much and jump off the balcony."

You left out the most incredible part. They were also going into hotel bars--a place were people had absolutely no intention of driving, and busting them. Claimed they may drink too much and jump off the balcony.

Isn't Dallas the place were you have to by a "membership" to drink in a restaurant or bar? I was there on buisness once and they charged me $10 at a bar to order a beer and gave me some card.
It seemed like an excuse to tax me.
Now apparently they can then arrest me for using my liscence.
Wouldn't it be smarter to just put a cop car in the parking lot and watch people as they went to their cars? Just a car outside would make me think twice about "having one for the road".
Also how do they proove drunkeness? Is it just a citation that you get and either pay or go to court for?

Bars are private property. How can you be guilty of public drunkeness on private property?

I can't speak for Texas, but if it's anything like California, bars are issued liquor licenses controlled by the state, and as such they are subject to certain rules regarding the service of obviously intoxicated persons. They are also subject to routine and directed checks by local law enforcement to ensure they are in compliance with the regulations.
As for whether or not a bar is in public, they are, as places where the public regularly gathers. So if public intoxication is a crime, then it's a crime to be intoxicated in a bar. Is it a waste of time? Depends on whether or not the bar is causing problems in the neighborhood. If not, then yes, I agree there are more important issues that can be addressed with limited resources.

Bars are private property. How can you be guilty of public drunkeness on private property?

"Private property" doesn't mean much these days. If they allow people to walk in off the street, legislators and pundits will call it "public." You give up your property rights by exercising your assembly rights...

This has been going on in College Station for quite some time.
TABC is not accountable to anyone, so of course they run amok.
Seems like anyone looking at public policy would want to stop this practice.
Two considerations.
1)Why have a designated driver if you are going to get cited while in the bar?
2) They have gone so far as to stop cabs and haul the passenger out of the cab to give them a citation for public intoxication. Why call a cab to take you home if the cabs are being stopped to give citations to the passengers? This practice will only lead ot more drunk drivers on the roads.
MADD has too much pull here in Texas.

Isn't Dallas the place were you have to by a "membership" to drink in a restaurant or bar?

I think they've changed that recently, but it's been a while since I had a drink. Even when I did I don't think this applied to Dallas, but to some of the suburbs. The suburbs have their own rules. Some are even dry.
I saw some speculation on the Huffington Post that the TABC was facing a review of some sunset provision and were looking to justify its renewal.

There appears to be some confusion, and perhaps it's just me. The threshold for public intoxication in California is much higher than for drunk driving. .08 (the legal limit for driving) is no where near the level of intoxication required to meet the burden for public intoxication. While someone who meets that threshold certainly should not be driving, many people who should not be driving do not meet the threshold for public intox.

As a Texan and a bar frequenter, this is certainly disheartening. I also agree with BigTex's stance that the TABC has a whole lot of power and an amount of independence rivaled only by the Game Warden.
I can't say, though, that this is wholly a bad deal. If you're enjoying a few cocktails at the local watering hole, I don't think the TABC boys are going to take much notice of you. If you, on the other hand, are staggering around, making a general ass of yourself, that's public intox baby! While I believe (I may be wrong here) the legal limit for public intox is .08, the reality is you have to be belligerent for them to come after you.
And kdog, bars are public establishments--public intoxication applies (much the same way driving drunk in a parking lot will net you a DWI, even if it's a "private" parking lot).

One thing I do now about Texas drinking law...it's legal for minors to drink alcohol if the beverage is purchased by their parent or guardian. I thought that was a cool law, putting parents in charge of their kids as opposed to the state. I had my first legal drink at age 13 in a Dallas restaurant!

So if public intoxication is a crime, then it's a crime to be intoxicated in a bar

One thing I do now about Texas drinking law...it's legal for minors to drink alcohol if the beverage is purchased by their parent or guardian.

Isn't that awesome?! It also applies to minors married to someone over 21. However, the law leaves it up the discretion of the restaurant to serve a minor. I've heard a few stories of restaurants, in particular some fast-causal chains, that refuse to serve anyone under 21 regardless of the compnay they are in.

Bars are private property. How can you be guilty of public drunkeness on private property?

according to the va state police, if you are drinking in your living room, with the drapes open, where people outside can see you, you are drinking in public.
idiotic? yeppers! i've never heard of anyone in va actually being arrested in those circumstances, but utilizing that interpretation of the law gives the police cause to break into your home without a warrant, because a "crime" is being commited.
absurd? you betcha! revenue enhancing? you betcha! how many of these people will actually fight the charges in court, rather than just go ahead and pay whatever the fine is, and hope no one notices? probably quite a few.
this turned out to be more or less the basis for the incident noted in fairfax county, va. you'll notice they haven't done it since. this is because fairfax county, va has more lawyers per capita than any other location in the entire country, the place literally crawls with them.
both the county police chief, and the commonwealth's attorney, whose brainchild this action was, spent quite a bit of time in political hot water over it. it was decided, after careful analysis, that this was not the most cost-efficient use of scarce, allocable county resources.
texas doesn't suffer from such an overabundance of lawyers, so they may well get away with it.

Oh my god... people getting D&D in a bar! Who ever heard of such a thing! I better stay away from them places!
On the other hand, it is refreshing to see gubment pursuing alcohol with the same idiocy they pursue less dangerous drugs.
But seriosuly, in SD we generate massive amounts of revenue off of gambling, we would never see such crap happen here. If people stop going to bars here, we would have to tax the individual income and the corporate income.
Same reason getting a DWI here is still not a real big deal-just a big fine more or less.

So if public intoxication is a crime, then it's a crime to be intoxicated in a bar. Is it a waste of time? Depends on whether or not the bar is causing problems in the neighborhood. If not, then yes, I agree there are more important issues that can be addressed with limited resources.

Patrick, can't a reasonable argument be made that nearly every bar causes problems for a neighborhood? Go into any bar at closing time and my guess is there will be several arrest potentials. You mention that it may not be a good use of resources and that surprises me. It would seem that an ounce of prevention here would appeal to you. Or am I misreading your stance?
I wish Pigwiggle was here to give his opinion on this, and of course Big Tex is his usual informative self, thanks BT.

1)Why have a designated driver if you are going to get cited while in the bar?
2) They have gone so far as to stop cabs and haul the passenger out of the cab to give them a citation for public intoxication. Why call a cab to take you home if the cabs are being stopped to give citations to the passengers? This practice will only lead ot more drunk drivers on the roads.
MADD has too much pull here in Texas.

I expect the irrational from you big tex and you haven't let me down yet, so ya wanna 'splain to me how MADD is responsible for the actions of the State of Texas - specifically, the TABC - and the cops? If MADD is haulin' people outta the backseats of cabs and puttin' 'em in cuffs, feel free to offer up some proof, my son. You have my blessings. If not, stuff a sock in it. You've just made another in an endless parade of irrational, irresponsible charges that have no basis in reality under the guise of common sense and traditional values.

Charlie, perhaps you are unaware of the influencing power of MADD as it relates to the issue. Perhaps you should conduct some research prior to casting such disparaging remarks against Big Tex (I know BT is a big boy and can defend himself but your comment is over the top).

Heather Hodges, an Abilene-based MADD victims advocate, said her group is working closely with the TABC on the project.

Patrick, can't a reasonable argument be made that nearly every bar causes problems for a neighborhood?

JL,
I expect it could, but it would depend on your definition of problems, and the degree to which they effect the local population. We have many bars, but only a few where we get significant calls for service from the patrons orpublic that live near there. When you're picking up bloody, beaten and stabbed people almost every weekend from a bar, that is a bar that deserves this kind of attention. I've seen it happen at regular bars, hotel bars and golf course bars, and a little stepped up enforcement can have a very significant cooling effect on the number of injuries and calls for service.
I guess I could have been more clear. I would support this type of enforcement if they were addressing problems. If it was for the purpose of revenue generation, as some here claim this clearly is (I don't think there's enough info to make that claim), then I wouldn't think it was a efficient use of resources. However, in most cases, the street cop doesn't get to choose what is an efficient use of thier time.

If not, stuff a sock in it. You've just made another in an endless parade of irrational, irresponsible charges that have no basis in reality under the guise of common sense and traditional values.

Last time I looked, complaining against drunk driving laws wasn't a traditional value... it was squarely opposed to traditional values.
How is saying an orginazation that supports traditional values has too much influence making an argument under the guise of traditional values?
But in the likely misguided belief that you are sincere in your wanting to know about MADD's influence here goes.
Bills MADD Supported That Passed:
HB 51 - ignition lock
HB 157 - 72 hour mandatory confinement no longer can be Friday night to Sunday... this means someone has to spend time in lock-up during part of the work week.
HB 904 - allow judges to have intoxication sentences run consecutivly to other crimes, not concurrently. This was not an option before this bill.
HB 2275 - allows law enforcement to seize and forefit a DWI intoxication offender's vehicle after a 3rd offense.
HB 2868 - holds an adult responsible for damages caused by a minor they served alchol to.
MADD opposed and defeated bills:
SB 1266/HB 1887 - would have reduced the amount of time of probation for intoxication offenses to 5 years. Would also have reduced the punishment for DUI resulting in death to manslaughter, which is eligible for community supervision.
You say I am intolerant Charley. Well, the same argument can be made towards you. You are so closed minded you don't even bother to try to comprehend my points, you automatically default into the I'm making "an endless parade of irrational, irresponsible charges ... under the guise ... of traditional values" even when the position taken is polar opposite to traditional values.
Jlvngstn - thanks for the support.

thanks P. I am not sure where I stand on this because it could lead to profiling minority bars, although Big Tex says that it is being done on campus and my hope is that it is not only in minority frequented establishments. I tend to think that an ounce of prevention might be good, but it so sounds like a "police state" action that I cannot stomach it. I think that if this was adopted by many states we would find a lot of DUI folks on "supervision" out at bars, which of course is why MADD is so high on it. I am not buying the "revenue" generator as a catalyst either.
Big Tex, I look forward to your comments on issues such as these, and appreciate your moderacy (is that a word?). I really appreciate Pigwiggle, SUO and your comments, they are usually quite thoughtful.

So, that's it? That's your case? That they lobby the State Legislature. Last I heard that was a Republican Dominated Entity. A fact Toxic Tommy Delay is quite proud of I might add. A Republican Governor and Lieutenant Governor(where the real power lies under the Texas Constitution I understand), the whole shebang.
So, just what is it you're trying to say, that MADD doesn't have the right to petition the Legislature? I'm quite sure the Restaurant People and the Spirits Council and the Beer folks are also lobbying. It's not like MADD are the only people in the room. It's also not like MADD gets a vote when these other guys don't. If anything, in a Republican controlled State, it'd be just the opposite, so cut the crap. Drunk driving is a problem. Go to an ER on a Friday of Saturday night if ya don't believe me and see for yourself. Read the damned Newspaper.
If they're doin' stuff like in this story, that's outta line, but to make blanket statements like MADD's got too much influence in the State when you have a history of making similarly ludicrous statements like pharmacists should have the right to refuse to sell morning after pills on religious grounds you're gonna take your lumps. Deal with it.

Nice selective use of statements Charley. Also nice use of setting up a straw man.

Drunk driving is a problem.

No @#$%, I've been hit by a drunk driver before. His tire stopped 6 inches from my windshield. He went out and got involved in another drunk driving accident before his case could be brought before the grand jury.
Yes, it is a problem. A big problem. That's why I DD on a regular basis.
No one has offered any evidence to the contrary.
These tactis that TABC is using will reduce the amount of DDs. People use DDs so they don't get into legal trouble. Ditto calling cabs. These actions are going to stop people from calling cabs near/at/after 2:00 AM because they will be a target.
As far as your selective use of facts. I could have regugiated prior statements, which are just an example of MADD working with TABC, but they were already on the table. No need to beat a dead horse. So I gave you MADD supported legislation as another aspect of what MADD does and how they have infulence here in Texas.
It wasn't an exclusive list, it was in addition to the already stated evidence.
As a supposed intellectual, you know that, you conviently choose to ignore it.
But apparantly it needs repeating, so here goes.

Heather Hodges, an Abilene-based MADD victims advocate, said her group is working closely with the TABC on the project.

MADD admits they are working with TABC.
Contradict that.
Also, you are no better than what you claim I am. You are arguing your morality against mine. No difference in arguing logic except for position.
However you repeatedly resort to pointing out typing errors (which you make your fair share of) and you don't hold out an open mind. You see my name and automatically take the contra position. No thought in the matter, no taking all posts into account. You simply selectivly choose what to acknowledge and what not to acknowledge.

These tactis that TABC is using will reduce the amount of DDs. People use DDs so they don't get into legal trouble. Ditto calling cabs. These actions are going to stop people from calling cabs near/at/after 2:00 AM because they will be a target.

I can see how it might dissuade people from using cabs, but I fail to see how it would have the same effect on designated drivers. Isn't their whole purpose to remain sober so they can drive? Wouldn't that pretty much make them safe from arrest for public intox?
As to Charlie"Haley's comet"dontsurf, don't sweat him, small people with complexes have freedom of speech too.

So which is it Charlie, if MADD is the principle figure in creating and lobbying for the enactment of this law, are they not complicit?
You stated : "If they're doin' stuff like in this story, that's outta line"
yet you cling to an argument with a circular reference. This is not Tom Delays fault or the republican party for that matter yet your argument stream ricochets like someone trying to connect the dots to WMD in Iraq.
Screaming louder than your opponent does not make you right, it makes you that obnoxious guy with his shirt off in the stands yelling insightful assistance such as "pass the ball".

it makes you that obnoxious guy with his shirt off in the stands yelling insightful assistance such as "pass the ball".

Oh, jeez, JL, there you go, you're gonna get ol' Haley's Comet here to tell us about his kid's ratty old basketball shoes again...
As far as the topic goes, I think if the cop's actions are not against the law, then why not do it?
Just like the drunk driver road block I went through last weekend, I'm sure that the thought/reminder of getting busted and/or why you would get busted, might keep dummies (like me at times) from having that last glass. Might curtail some unlawful activities (drunk driving, etc.) that could easily result in horrendous and completely avoidable accidents and deaths.
Heck, just the thought of losing my license puts a hole in my stomach, never mind the rest of what could happen...

I just went coast to coast, stickhandled through the lot of ya, deked the goalie, pulled it and tucked it just inside the right post, on the backhand in OT as I bask in the glow of the red light in my face and its reflection off the back of suo's neck, as not a one of ya will come to terms with the fact that the restaurant/tavern industry has lobbyists of their own just like the Spirit Council and the Beer People and they've got at least as much lawyers, guns and money and juice in a repo controlled legislature as MADD does when it comes time to vote and enact legislation. Deal with it. I'm off to see my nephews. I'll be gone most of the weekend. Maybe if you put your heads together and practice real hard, you could actually score by Sunday night.
You can show yourselves out.

Charley - so the booze industry has lobbiest. Conceded. So what? You still won't address the direct involvement by MADD, which MADD admits.

Nah, that would be you, tex. I didn't leave out the restaurant, liquor lobby side of the story, you did. Nice try. NEXT!!

Still addressing the secondary point and ignoring the main point.
Until you address the main point you may daydream about scoring, but haven't left the bench.
Patrick - the designated drivers will be inhibited because the need for them is gone. My experiance as a DD has been the passengers want to avoid getting a ticket. Not to avoid DUI per se, but to not have deal with the system. Since LEOs are going into bars undercover and waiting for people to become intoxicated (at least in CLL)the need for a DD is gone. They are already going to have to deal with LEO.
Thanks for the reminder that people like Charley aren't worth getting worked up over.
Charley, here's some rope, continue to make your own noose.

As far as the topic goes, I think if the cop's actions are not against the law, then why not do it

SUO - Two reasons. 1) This is not an objective standard LEOs must follow. Rather it is appear to be a threat to themselves or others. That's a subjective standard ripe for abuse.
Hypo: A bunch of us go to the a bar district. Some of the group gets slurred speech. Are they a threat to themselves or others on the basis of this info? No, but LEOs will give them citations anyway. LEO is vastly abusing their discretion they are given because it is a soft subjective standard.
2) Public policy. LEO are taking people out of cabs to give them citations. This will stop some segment of the population from calling a cab when they need one. This in turn causes more drunk drivers on the roads. With LEO stationed in the bars they aren't on the streets, which is where the danger from intoxication is.

I think I recall Charlie questioning BIG Tex's mental agility, yet as I read the stream of discourse I find it difficult to find an intelligent argument from Chuck. It is quite annoying to have to scroll through the garbage on here sometimes and Chuckles litters quite often.
BT - I am not sure I agree with the designated driver argument but completely agree on the chance that it may be abused. It seems to me that this particular method is susceptible to profiling and judgement calls.
One guy is buying rounds for the bar and everyone loves him, he is sh*tfaced but a happy drunk. One guy is minding his own business after his 6th scotch and water and hasn't said a word all night. One guy is yelling "Duke Sucks" over and over again. One woman is telling all of her friends that she loves them, repeatedly, and repeatedly. Do all 4 get citations?
I do think I have made up my mind, too subjective and I do not like it.

Tex, agreed that the PI laws are written so vaguely and so subjectively that they are clearly open to abuse or mistakes.
But don't the LEO's also have to make the case stick? Wouldn't it be pretty difficult for them to get "But your Honor, he was slurring his words!" accepted by a judge as proof positive, beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever the legaleze is, that the defendant was endangering himself or others?

P.S. I don't know what is worse, the drunk guy yelling Duke Sucks over and over, or the buttwipe on the cell phone on a crowded train talking about their plans for the weekend loud enough for the folks in the next car to hear. Or the person in the health club on the cell arguing with their significant other.
I think the cell phone idiots bother me more.....
SUO - I missed the gym shoe stories, thankfully...............

Are they a threat to themselves or others on the basis of this info? No, but LEOs will give them citations anyway. LEO is vastly abusing their discretion they are given because it is a soft subjective standard.

I couldn't agree more, it is a very subjective standard. For me they basically have to be kneewalking drunk and causing problems. For others, the smell of alcohol and a sideways look are enough.
It is however, a valuable tool when used properly, and in California, a person arrested for public intox can be released when sober without charges, fines or a criminal record. Kinda like Otis in Mayberry. Where I work, after about the 15th or so offense, you might get the DA to file a case. Like DUI, it's hard to set a purely objective standard. We've all seen people who are functional at .25 or above.
JL,
Don't tell anyone, I think this is the second time we agreed and I might get kicked out of the club. Three strikes and all.
SUO,
Looks like chuck has a new Delta Tau Chi name. "Haley's comet". Since Flounder, Pinto and Bluto were all taken. Sounds like he fancies himslef as a hockey aficionado as well.

Jlvngstn: Edger, It would seem to me that the state is not endorsing excessive drinking, nor does the state endorse drunk driving so I do not understand the parallel that the state bears culpability.
I don't drink much anymore myself. Maybe 2 or 3 scotches a year, or 1 or 2 glasses of wine in the same time. Beer never. don't like it.
I drank regularly though and often heavily, through my 20's and 30's. My purpose for going into a bar was twofold. Have a good time, and get drunk. Far beyond the legal limit for driving. Then I'd call a cab to get home. Most times. there were times that I would drive home and expected to be busted if I'd been caught. I'm not excusing that in any way, driving as drunk as I was was stupid and dangerous. I might have killed someone.
I and my friends had some of the best times of our lives in those years. Life was lighthearted and easy and friendly and good and full of life. The way it should be for young people. Not full of the kind of insecure stiffnecked miserable self-righteous soul destroying anti-life crap thet gets peddled as morality, which is what going into bars to bust people for being drunk is really all about.
My point is that when I went into the bars one of my purposes was to get drunk. That is one of the reasons many people go into bars.
If the state doesn't want people getting drunk in public the state can pass a law that will make it illegal for the bars to serve you enough to get drunk. Or make it illegal for you to buy enough drinks in a bar to get drunk on.
Or accept that that is what bars are for and leave people inside them alone. Bust them if they drive drunk or are a public nuisance when they leave the bar if you want. But leave them alone inside the bars.
For the state to have cops going into bars and busting people inside them for being drunk is the height of ridiculous and hypocritical idiocy if the state licences the bars, and I think for anyone to think it is right, or moral, or anything other than shooting fish in a barrel, is pure f***ing bullsh*t. And I think everyone here knows it, regardless of what king of sh*t they spew.

Patrick, you and I have agreed many times, but we have been here a couple of years so it seems like only a couple. I think I have tempered my idiocy as of late and am less likely to assume the "worst" from you, which I would think is indicative of your responses of late.
Edger- You had me until the last paragraph. I drank in my 20's also and gave it up after a couple of years before the next round of kids (had one early). I don't think it is good to have the police in there because of the subjectivity, not because of one's right to get very drunk. If the law were to change for PI and it was allowable in bars provided you had a cab or a DD (impossible to enforce) than I would not have an issue with it. I don't agree with it based on the subjectivity for enforcement, but it is hard to make an argument against enforcing a law that may reduce subsequent crimes committed by an intoxicated patron.

J: it is hard to make an argument against enforcing a law that may reduce subsequent crimes
Well... I understand how that can seem reasonable at first glance.
Outlaw all guns: no crimes involving guns.
Outlaw all cars: no getaway vehicles.
Outlaw money: no bank robberies.
I could go on ad nauseum, but I think you can see where the logic leads.

Of course, if you arrest everyone in all the bars who is drunk, and take 'em away before they can leave with each other... I suspect there will be a lot less unplanned pregnancies, and a much lower abortion rate.
;-)

JL,
I hope I've tempered mine as well. It's always good to find agreement with people whose opinions differ from yours. Proves it can be done.
Edgar,
It is illegal for bars in California to serve intoxicated persons, and I imagine that holds true in Texas. It's not strictly enforced for the reasons you've stated, but when bars cause trouble and draw attention to their practices, then it is one tool that can be used to help moderate them.

Patrick, It is illegal for bars in California to serve intoxicated persons, and I imagine that holds true in Texas.
I think that holds true for most places.
when bars cause trouble and draw attention to their practices, then it is one tool that can be used to help moderate them.
I also think that's a good idea. But that is using arrest powers for people who are causing trouble, which applies anywhere in public (or private: domestic abuse, etc.)
I maintain still that arresting people just because they are drunk, and for no other reason, is abusive, stupid and a probably a veiled attempt at forcing self-righteous moral judgements, and going into bars just to do that is hypocritical and ridiculous.